Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Education, Prestige, and Integrity
Posts
Yup. It's COMPLETE bullshit. Affluent suburbs have the money for new computers, language labs, after school programs and al the other goodies that *contribute* to academic success. They can attract and retain a higher caliber of teachers as well.
#FreeScheck
#FreeSKFM
Well, East Asia has culturally relied on the examination system to provide social mobility. There's always a countervailing pressure by richer families to find some way
to leverage all that wealth for their children's future - hence tuition or cram schools - but again, a careful education policy planner can deflect many such methods.
Under this system there's a degree of intergenerational mobility, but a given individual in a bad track gets screwed for the rest of his/her life. I think Hachface was talking about this individual mobility, though.
There's a damned lot of millionaires coming out of China these days, which is rather common when you have massive economic development.
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/11/02/the-new-chinese-millionaires/
We're probably talking about different things here. My original point is that, absent overriding economic inequalities -- which are numerous and severe -- it is a feature of the United States education system that poor performance earlier in a student's economic career does not preclude catching up later. I think this is a good thing, one of the few good things about American education, and is something we should preserve if we ever get our act together and carry out substantial reform in this country.
Ah. Yes, America does give more second chances than many of our peers. Although it may be partly due to sheer number of failures we have earlier on.
she went to school in india, originally she wanted to become a doctor but got off track for a bit, and there wasn't really a way for her to get back and do it
here the average age for entry to med school is now like 26 or something
Here in Virginia, we actually have counties trying to redistrict schools so that the poor areas are completely in their own school districts... it's pretty awesome.
Henrico County is notorious for its East-West rivalry... guess what one of the major demographic differences would be... go on... guess.
That contradicts much of my experience. Much of the 'Old World' has class-related social mobility problems (UK, most of Europe, Russia, India, SE Asia, NE Asia, Africa I think). Scandinavia seems relatively open, I think, and I just don't know much about S America).
Got any evidence for that claim?
Now, if you happen to not care much about school (which figures, because I'm not sure how many children realize from age 8 onwards that their preparation is going to matter come the final year of primary school) you will laze of, and possibly do badly. And while you can work up your way to uni if you get shunted into the more trade oriented paths, you can be looking up to 5 years of extra time just to break into university. The first year.
It's pretty damn criminal. I don't -think- (and I admit I am not an expert by any means) end of primary education is indicative of learning potential for the majority of students.
More specific rage:
One of the questions was "Why does a dog pee, except to relief it's bladder?" Pretty obvious right? Until I realized I was never taught this little fact, and that the only reason why I knew it was because I had once read a Donald Duck comic that mentioned why. Yeah. Go Dutch primary education.
I'd be surprised if there are any. US & Canada have one of the best social mobilities in the world, partially because of the type of immigrants both countries attract.
There was a study a couple months ago (Britain is beind the States which wins by leaps and bounds). I'll see if I can grab you a link.
Edit: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/ERD/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.aspx
There is some kind of irony in there somewhere.
Germany, Canada, and the four Scandanavian nations.
I'm not really sure about the sample in that study . . .
People in this thread often say that Republicans who aren't crazy wealthy are voting against their own interests. But you have it wrong. They are simply voting that they'd rather keep a small chance of becoming wealthy rather than create a much larger chance of moving to the middle class.
There's a reason the US has more billionaires than the rest of the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlUsiKfeDfo&eurl=http://areasofmyexpertise.blogspot.com/
http://www.ugo.com/movies/babylon-ad-video-gallery/?cur=vin-diesel-dungeons-and-dragons&morepics=1
Massive inflation?
Wealth isn't a zero-sum game.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
The US has more billionaires even when you adjust for exchange rate. The US has more really fucking wealthy people, if that helps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlUsiKfeDfo&eurl=http://areasofmyexpertise.blogspot.com/
http://www.ugo.com/movies/babylon-ad-video-gallery/?cur=vin-diesel-dungeons-and-dragons&morepics=1
Anyone who does this in any country becomes a millionaire/billionaire. It has nothing to do with tax policies except if you want to talk about how to incentivize the founding of new enterprise (nothing to do with personal income tax).
True, but there are still many popular programs that are designed to give a rich a leg up that had support until recently. American Healthcare, for instance, allows a wealthy person to simply buy high quality insurance, rather than having to pay for a gold plated private insurance on top of the government plan. Education restricts class mobility by unofficially segregating schools by class; the wealthy go to private schools, the upper middle class goes to well funded public schools, the lower middle class goes to poorly funded public schools, and the kids in the ghetto get fucked. That, and the fact that we have lower income tax rates, particularly on the top bracket, than any other country in the world.
As far as whether or not a rising tide raises all boats, it would be noted that median wages in America have barely increased at all in the past thirty years despite the enormous economic growth. This graph shows that the median wage for a one earner household has barely moved since 1975, suggesting that most of the gains in wages have occurred due to increased work hours, although I might simply be putting in my own bias here, with the truth being that one earner households work in industries that haven't grown, or haven't paid their workers more, in the past thirty years. I'm too lazy to figure that out.
This graph shows that the average hourly wages have barely moved since 1964. Since the PCE Deflator tends to underestimate, and the CPI-W tends to overestimate, the actual average rise in wages over the past forty years is probably close to one dollar of 2005 wages.
Also, to take a partisan cheap shot (because I"m an ass), I'm pretty sure cutting our taxes has not resulted in windfall tax collection from an eternally vibrant economy. Laffer was probably wrong on that one.
You're right, wealth is not a zero sum game, and the hourly wages of most Americans has been constant over the past forty years. The median wage for households has gone up about 30% in America since 1967. However, at the same time, the inflation adjusted, or "Real" GDP, has nearly tripled. It isn't really an issue of the rich stealing from the poor. It's more that the rich are getting richer simply by watching the economy grow, while the middle class is forced to work for an increase in real income. People in America don't mind because they generally like it that way. The "American Dream" of the middle class is not to have just a nicer home or a nicer car. The American dream is to have a yacht. In general, this is reflected through politics to affect all walks of life. American wage disparity is directly connected to the American ethos. If someone wants to change that, good luck for them, they'll need it.
Wait a minute, shit. You're right. The bolded part is wrong. How about "Most Americans are willing to give up an increase in the standard of living for the middle class in exchange for an increased chance to be fabulously wealthy. This willingness is reflected by the healthcare, education, and taxation systems in America, which benefit those with money to a greater extent than other countries. This willingness is also reflected in America's OECD-leading income inequality rates."
Meh, it'll do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlUsiKfeDfo&eurl=http://areasofmyexpertise.blogspot.com/
http://www.ugo.com/movies/babylon-ad-video-gallery/?cur=vin-diesel-dungeons-and-dragons&morepics=1
I'm not asking because I support it, I'm asking because I'm not really sure of the answer.
It seems like in this political climate, if we across the board split the budget equally among all public schools, this would do several things:
A. Budgets and salaries at "rich" schools would get slashed
B. Budgets at "not rich" would schools go up a little bit.
C. Teachers at "rich" schools would most likely leave to join private schools, considering that even in "rich" districts, teacher salaries are awful.
D. "Rich kids" leave en masse to join private schools because parents don't want their children's education to suffer by a perceived drop in quality.
I can't really decide whether such an equalizing move would hurt the upper 50% of schools more than it would help the lower 50% of schools. Like most people are saying, the entire system needs an overhaul.
True, but being a billionaire entrepreneu is far different than being a millionaire entrepreneur.
There is a difference between the way the US and the Japanese view wealth. In the US, rich people are in the center of the media. They are adored, focused on, loved, appreciated, etc. 39 of the richest 100 people in the world are American, according to the Forbesaccording to Forbes' list which removes numbers 44 to 50 for some reason.
Japan has a strong culture of equality and has a history which frowned upon the rich, with the merchants occupying the lowest rung of the caste system. Two of the 100 richest people in the world are Japanese, even though Japanese GDP is 1/3 of American GDP.
Perhaps there are people who thought of something in Japan who would be on that list if they lived in America. Perhaps they are further down the list. Perhaps there are many Japanese that could be on that list, having net worths in the hundreds of millions, if they lived in America.
It is true that people will get money for being extraordinary in any country in the world. The difference is one between millions and billions.
Perhaps I am wrong about the motives. Perhaps people allow systems that blatantly favor the rich to continue because they value the American dream of being wealthy as a concept, not because they believe that they will actually be wealthy one day. Either way, the American culture is at the root of explaining American wealth disparity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlUsiKfeDfo&eurl=http://areasofmyexpertise.blogspot.com/
http://www.ugo.com/movies/babylon-ad-video-gallery/?cur=vin-diesel-dungeons-and-dragons&morepics=1
If a massive increase in school funding occurred simultaneously with the equalizing it would soften the blow felt by the "rich" schools.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlUsiKfeDfo&eurl=http://areasofmyexpertise.blogspot.com/
http://www.ugo.com/movies/babylon-ad-video-gallery/?cur=vin-diesel-dungeons-and-dragons&morepics=1
Most private school teachers' salaries, at least in California, are substantially less than what public school teachers in even the poorest of districts make.
Secondly, I do not get what you are trying to say here. Are you arguing that their are less Japanese billionaire's because they have an idea and then choose not to try and market it? That the Japanese citizenry is less aspirational?
Basically I'm trying to work out if you're making an observation, or making an argument that the stratified classes in the US are somehow a good thing for the production of billionaires?
Because my argument all along has been that this notion is retarded, because tax policy has nothing to do with how rich people are in a country. There are never less rich people because gub'mint takin' 'dere monies! (well I suppose unless you lived under an old communist state).
If there are a lot of rich people in America, it's because of luck and the availability of capital to become rich - which you should be mindful of since Japan's economy has struggled with stagnation for a long while and hence, yes, you really would have trouble getting funding there.
its usually that way
Its counter-intuitive but true. Teacher salaries are also not awful, a single wage earner makes more than the average household for 10 months of work. We just hear more of their salary complaints in the classroom as kids than we hear from other professions (who also tend to bitch about not being paid enough).
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
A nation with a few wealthy people sitting among a mass of poor nations can be stable. A broadly wealthy nation that suddenly creates a whole bunch more wealthy people at the expense of the general welfare is a revolution waiting to happen. From before the fall of the Roman Republic to after the French Revolution, this has been true. The sudden wealth creation feels like a golden age, but it's actually a major social disaster in the making.
The trouble is that people with wealth need ways to spend and preserve that wealth, so they buy more and invest in things like houses and businesses. This raises the cost of living for the majority that have been left behind and ends up destroying wealth for once prosperous members of the middle class.
Pretty soon, you've got a small number of people gaining status while a larger number of people lose their prosperity. While it's got to get incredibly bad for the poor to sustain a revolution on their own, a middle class that feels it's losing its status will suddenly start hanging people from the lightposts and toppling governments. That's where you got the French Revolution.
This is a rather silly statement.
Wisdom does not come automatic with age.
There's a reason the Dutch are really good at building dams - i.e. they've had lots of floods. Laws and cultures evolve because of pressures and their modern faces show evidence of that evolution.
Are you trying to disprove his point?
Not to mention that it's not like Americans sprang fully-formed from the earth 250 years ago. The colonists learned lessons from being citizens of Great Britain.
American culture evolved in a world where there was a massive social safety valve in the form of the frontier. When things got bad, people could move West. The Europeans had this, to a much lesser extent, in the colonies, but they did not have resources or local control to move a huge percentage of their population abroad. America also benefited because the closing of the frontier was closely followed by two world wars which put it in the position of being the last major industrial society untouched by war on their soil. We still had our factories and leveraged them into becoming a superpower.
European and Asian societies have experienced waves of unrest, wars and revolution caused by income imbalance and their culture and laws have evolved in a way that discourages wide income disparities. American culture has not, because it has not had to.
Are you aware of the American Civil War?
Or of anything more of history than massive generalizations?
hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
Yup. Got a masters in American history, even. The Civil War has nothing to do with it, at least to the extent that it wasn't a major causative factor. If anything, the Civil War is an example of what happens when you have a society with two major geographical regions with wildly differing and competing economic systems in a single society.
The concept that income disparity, especially rapidly created income disparity, is a massive source of social unrest is not a new and radical idea. Nor is the idea that European and Asian societies are culturally shaped by fear of it. Like, it's kind of boring, standard freshmen textbook stuff.
The U.S. has not had income disparity cause a succession of violent revolutions and constant social unrest, as France, Belgium, Germany and most of continental Europe did in the 17th and 18th centuries as a result of the Industrial Revolution. There's a difference between bread lines and guillotines.
It's a question of degree. We've had problems, but we've not had a mass of petty bourgeoisie march on the White House and behead the president.
So... perhaps either a) income disparity is a new thing, or b) maybe we did something right to prevent the kind of civic turmoil seen in other nations.